Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.

1055–1075, 2010
0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2010.04.002

(HERMENEUTIC) PHENOMENOLOGY
IN TOURISM STUDIES
Tomas Pernecky 1
The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Tazim Jamal 1
Texas A&M University, USA

Abstract: Despite the growing popularity of phenomenology in tourism studies, past attempts
have inadequately addressed the theoretical and philosophical assumptions that influence a
researcher’s approach and interpretations. Furthermore, the potential of hermeneutical phe-
nomenology to address experiential and existential issues related to being-in-the-world (Heideg-
ger, 1996) of tourism remains largely unexplored. This conceptual paper introduces
theoretical as well as methodological considerations for tourism research, and situates some
key phenomenological approaches historically as well as within specific research paradigms.
We focus here on the differing ontological and epistemological views of Edmund Husserl and
Martin Heidegger. Examples are provided to illustrate the importance of situating one’s
philosophical assumptions in research, and the value of applying hermeneutic phenomenol-
ogy to study experience, understanding and meaning in tourism. Keywords: Heidegger, Hus-
serl, experience, hermeneutics, phenomenology. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
A search for the keywords ‘‘tourist experience’’ in Google Scholar in
December, 2009, returned 4920 references, indicating that experience
has occupied a significant space in the study of tourism. In the field
of business studies, Pine and Gilmore (1999) propose that the ‘‘expe-
rience economy’’ is to replace the agrarian economy, industrial econ-
omy and service economy; these authors envisage it becoming one of
the most important economic offerings. In the field of tourism studies
whale watching, amusement parks, luxury resorts, spiritual retreats,
and cultural performances are all part of what we understand and con-
ceptualise as the tourism phenomenon. Indeed, tourism marketers
were quick to pick up on this, and few would disagree that experience
is an integral component of the ‘‘tourism product’’. In this regard,

Tomas Pernecky is a Programme Manager at the Centre for Continuing Education, The
University of Auckland (Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. Email <tomasp-
ernecky@yahoo.com>). His research focuses mainly on knowledge production of and
theoretical inquiries into tourism. Tazim Jamal is an Associate Professor in Recreation, Park
and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 77843-2261. Email
<tjamal@tamu.edu>. Her research addresses theoretical and methodological issues in
tourism, plus collaborative tourism planning and (eco)cultural sustainability.
1
Both authors have contributed equally to this article.

1055
1056 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075

the use of phenomenological approaches in tourism is highly pertinent

as phenomenology is concerned with the study of lived experience.
The term phenomenology is derived from two Greek words phaino-
men (an appearance) and logos (reason or word) which translate into
reasoned appearance where appearance stands for anything one is con-
scious of (Stewart & Mickunas, 1974). The word phenomenon similarly
originates in the Greek phaenesthai and means to appear or show itself
(Moustakas, 1994). Phenomenology is often depicted as the study of
essences (as by Merleau-Ponty, 1942, 1945, 1964), the science of phe-
nomena (van Manen, 1990), and the exploration of human experience
(Polkinghorne, 1989). It is also commonly described as the study of
consciousness. To be conscious, as Franz Brentano (1838–1917)
pointed out, is to be conscious of ‘‘something’’; this directedness of
experience towards objects (and the world) in phenomenology is char-
acterised as the study of intentionality (first developed by Brentano,
1973; see also Cerbone, 2006). Often mistaken for a qualitative meth-
od, phenomenology is in fact an area within philosophy that has been
appropriated to provide methodological guidance in applied research
(van Manen, 2003).
Phenomenology has become increasingly popular as a research per-
spective to study experience in the humanistic and social science disci-
plines. It can be seen in professional contexts such as psychology
(Giorgi, 1975; Giorgi, 1997), nursing (Annells, 1996; Koch, 1995; Koch,
1996), and education (Nell, 1973; van Manen, 1990; van Manen, 2002),
but also religious studies (Wolff, 1999) and management studies
(Gibson & Hanes, 2003). In tourism studies, it has served as a theoret-
ical avenue towards describing or understanding the experiential, and
lived existence of tourists/guests, locals/hosts, service providers and
any other stakeholders that take part in the tourism phenomenon
(as discussed below). It does not merely call for an account of things
we see in the world (e.g., book, bus, airplane) but shifts the focus to
our ‘‘seeing’’ of objects and the world (Cerbone, 2006), and the mean-
ings they hold (e.g., the experience of reading a book on travel writing,
driving to a holiday destination, travelling to it by bus, or flying there).
There are, however, significant variations within the phenomenologi-
cal tradition. Hermeneutic phenomenology, for instance, addresses
experience from the perspective of meanings, understandings and
interpretations. Ablett and Dyer (2009, p. 226) see hermeneutic phe-
nomenology as ‘‘an inclusive, critical and dialogical endeavour’’.
This conceptual paper explicates the significant differences in phe-
nomenological approaches and raises ontological and epistemological
issues related to the study of experience (lived experience as well as lar-
ger existential issues in tourism). We argue that, in addition to theoret-
ical considerations, the paradigmatic assumptions underlying various
approaches to phenomenological research are important to under-
stand, if rigorous research is to result. Our primary focus is diverse his-
torical contributions of Husserl and Heidegger to phenomenology and
existential phenomenology, but we do draw upon other related philos-
ophers (such as Gadamer, 1976, 1989) for specific insights. The trajec-
tory commenced by these philosophers leads to contemporary insights
 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075 1057

on hermeneutic phenomenology, which we propose is a valuable and

under-utilised approach for understanding lived experience in
tourism. A theoretical discussion is provided that helps to delineate
ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions for apply-
ing phenomenology and, more specifically, hermeneutic phenomenol-
ogy to tourism research. Examples are provided and implications for
method, analysis and presentation of results are addressed.

PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN TOURISM STUDIES

The area of phenomenological research in tourism is gaining a
greater momentum, however most of the work has been ambiguous
at best. Many publications tend to avoid the discussion of phenomenol-
ogy (Ritchie, Burns, & Palmer, 2005; Veal, 1992), or provide brief ac-
counts of phenomenological approaches (Jennings, 2001). Some
simply skirt the peripheries of this rich theoretical discipline. Thus
there are at least two major challenges when it comes to employing
phenomenology. Firstly, it is largely unknown in tourism research,
and clear methodological guidance is lacking in the few studies that
call on it (e.g., Cohen, Yeshayahu, & Almagor, 1992; Masberg & Silver-
man, 1996; Obenour, 2004). Secondly, phenomenological research is
highly complex; it is time-consuming, requiring active researcher’s
involvement, attentiveness and knowledge of the philosophical under-
pinning of the particular approach.
The following critique is offered constructively to show the necessity
for theoretical and methodological rigour in studying the complex but
important area of phenomenology. The first and foremost known work
that uses the word phenomenology is Erik Cohen’s (1979) Phenomenol-
ogy of Tourist Experiences. Cohen offers a framework and a typology of
tourist experiences, but reference to the rich tradition of phenomeno-
logical study and theoretical justifications are not provided (brief allu-
sions are made to important figures such as Eliade and Turner). Other
studies similarly use the term phenomenology (Cohen et al., 1992;
Mannell & Iso-Ahola, 1987) but neither elaborate on the philosophy
of phenomenology, nor show theoretical application to (applied)
research.
Uriely and Belhassen (2005) follow Cohen (1979) work and focus on
drug-related tourist experiences. They interview thirty participants and
apply interpretive analysis aimed to ‘‘classify each interviewee into one
of Cohen’s modes’’ (Uriely & Belhassen, 2005, p. 242); a philosophical
or theoretical discussion is lacking. Uriely’s earlier study with Yonay
and Simchai’s (2002) is similarly based on Cohen’s typology and does
not describe the philosophical or theoretical considerations guiding
the study. Masberg and Silverman (1996) paper Visitor Experiences at
Heritage Sites: A Phenomenological Approach, likewise fails to provide an ex-
plicit account of the methodology employed. They distributed sixty
questionnaires to students and asked questions such as: What was the
latest heritage site you visited? Where is it located? What does the term
‘‘heritage site’’ mean to you? Please describe your visit in as much
1058 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075

detail as possible. What did you get out of the visit? Although the authors
(Masberg & Silverman, 1996) briefly mention both Husserl and Heideg-
ger, it is not clear what phenomenological approach they followed and
their work reads rather like a method-driven questionnaire analysis.
Szarycz (2009, p. 48) seems to be aware of the discrepancies in phe-
nomenological research in tourism studies and notes that most work is
based on a ‘‘potpourri of ideas’’ and that some researchers fail to be
true to the philosophical origins of particular phenomenologies (such
as claims about reality and issues of objectivity). But he, too, attempts
to depict phenomenology as a prescribed method and leaves little
room for recognising the diversity within the phenomenological tradi-
tion. Moreover, papers addressing phenomenology in tourism studies
misleadingly insist on a subjective-objective ‘‘divide’’; Szarycz errs on
the side of ‘‘subjective’’ and puzzles over the possibility of commonal-
ities in understanding a phenomenon (e.g., in a shared travel festival,
or dining experience). The next section of this paper shows, by con-
trast, that several key phenomenologists doubted the possibility of an
essence of experience, or of a ‘‘subjective’’ experience, but addressed in-
stead inter-subjectivity, and the relationship between ‘‘subjects’’ and
‘‘objects’’ (things in the world): the resulting focus on language, mean-
ing and understanding leads to an interpretive turn to hermeneutic
phenomenology.
Other recent works in tourism studies show narrowly prescribed,
generally positivistic and descriptive phenomenology. Curtin (2006)
seeks to gain an insight into the human-dolphin attractions and asks
the pertinent phenomenological question: ‘‘What is it like to swim with
dolphins?’’ She draws on Moustakas (1994) and van Manen (1990) to
guide her method of data gathering and analysis. Andriotis (2009),
Pernecky (2006), Ingram (2002) and Li (2000) offer descriptive
phenomenologies to portray the essences of participants’ experiences:
largely drawing on the work of Husserl (in combination with
Moustakas, 1994 and van Manen, 1990). Similarly, Hayllar and Griffin
(2005) also draw method direction from van Manen (1990) to examine
the experience of tourists to The Rocks in Sydney, Australia. Then
there is Obenour (2004) paper Understanding the Meaning of the ‘‘Jour-
ney’’ to Budget Travellers in which the author claims to draw on philo-
sophical hermeneutics, but his approach bears no resemblance to
the writing of Gadamer (or Heidegger, for that matter) and there is
little guidance to the reader as to the methodological intentions and
the theory informing Obenour’s method.
By contrast, Pons (2003), draws upon Heidegger’s later development
of the notion of dwelling in his writing Building, Dwelling, Thinking
(Heidegger, 1971) plus a host of other theoretical contributions
including Deleuzian post-structuralism to discuss embodiment in tour-
ism. Pons (2003) article is theoretically well-informed and seeks to sit-
uate tourism phenomenologically within a dwelling metaphor; he also
calls for overcoming the ‘‘habitual methodological individualism of
tourist studies as well as teleological, detached, all-powerful concep-
tions of the subject’’ (p. 43). Jamal and Stronza (2008) also draw upon
Heidegger (1971) to help inform their study of local-global discourses
 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075 1059

and situated experiences of ‘‘dwelling’’ with ecotourism in the Peru-

vian Amazon. As presented further below, hermeneutic phenomenol-
ogy situates the human body in a network of relationships and
practices, thus facilitating an embodied view of experiences, rather
than the disembodied, Cartesian dualities that the Husserlian phenom-
enology which preceded it tended towards.
Reisinger and Steiner (2006b) bring Heidegger into their discussion
of authenticity and interpretation in tourism and seem to interpret his
work through a subjectivist lens. In their paper Reconceptualizing Object
Authenticity (2006b, p. 80) they interpret Heidegger’s work to say that it
does not matter whether representation is ‘‘objective, constructed, or
denied legitimacy; it is the world as pictured through one’s idea or eidos
of it’’. Reisinger and Steiner (2006b, p. 80) thus propose: ‘‘if Heideg-
ger is right, everything that tourists experience, what they see, touch,
hear, smell and taste, is real and authentic in itself’’. The authors con-
clude that object authenticity should be abandoned (without explain-
ing how or why this follows). Indeed, adherents of hermeneutic
approaches seek to understand the meanings objects hold for the per-
ceiver(s), but they also seek to understand the relationships between
them (including tradition, culture, heritage, history, and social set-
tings). The existence of the external world and objects in it was taken
as given (Heidegger was a realist in this sense), but experience of, and
relationships to, the world and objects, were matters for phenomeno-
logical investigation. Authenticity, as Heidegger points out in Being
and Time (1996) is an existential condition, and it is surprising to see
how little use has been made of his hermeneutic phenomenology to
understand the richness and complexity of experience.
In a different paper, Reconceptualising Interpretation: The Role of Tour
Guides in Authentic Tourism, Reisinger and Steiner (2006a) propose that
the most Heideggerian types of tour guides can be found in Israel, and
that these guides can be seen as agents of education and culture as they
interpret scenes and meanings. It appears that the Israeli tour guides
are more reflexive and draw on their individual and cultural back-
grounds to produce richer descriptions and interpretations (the turn
towards hermeneutic phenomenology here is not clearly explicated).
Ablett and Dyer (2009) hermeneutical work on heritage interpretation
highlights well the importance of tradition, history, language, inter-
subjective contexts, and social dimensions of experience. They concur
that interpretation is a ‘‘task that belongs equally to visitors as it does to
the interpretive specialist’’ (p. 224). However, epistemological clarity is
lacking as to what the authors mean by ‘‘revelatory, truth-disclosing
capacities’’ (p. 220), or other ways of ‘‘experiencing truth that are
more basic or ‘primal’ than scientific explanations’’. Furthermore,
one may struggle to interpret what appears to sound like a foundation-
alist ‘‘larger truth’’ in their citation of Tilden’s statement: ‘‘Interpreta-
tion is revelation of a larger truth that lies behind any statement of
fact’’ (Tilden, 1977, p. 8, cited in Ablett & Dyer 2009, p. 220). In this
case the reader would benefit from knowing what philosophical and
theoretical assumptions Ablett and Dyer draw upon with respect to
their interpretation of Heidegger’s works. It is to such issues that
1060 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075

inform (or misinform) efforts to apply (hermeneutic) phenomenology

methodologically that we turn to next.

RESEARCH PARADIGMS AND METHODOLOGICAL

CONSIDERATIONS
Suvantola (2002, p. 14) is well aware of the medley of methodologi-
cal possibilities that various phenomenological approaches can inform
and states that ‘‘while striving to achieve understanding is the common
denominator of all phenomenological methods applied to empirical
inquiries, this striving can embrace a vast range of different ways in
which to conduct a piece of research’’. To appreciate the richly diverse
range of phenomenological approaches and methodological direc-
tions they inform, it is crucial to first recognise the philosophical
assumptions that undergird them, and ponder about the confusion
and lack of accountability in previous research approaches. In recent
years there has been an emphasis on and proliferation of more quali-
tative approaches in tourism studies, a field that has generally favoured
the use of positivistic and quantitative, scientific methods (Jennings,
2001; Walle, 1997). These tended to fit well with the industry, business
and functionalist/applied research that dominated the study of tour-
ism, as Franklin (2004), and Jamal and Everett (2004) pointed out.
Pritchard and Morgan (2007, p. 18) observe that ‘‘tourism continues
to demonstrate a poorly developed disciplinary base prompted by a fail-
ure to engage with paradigmatic shift and theoretical challenge’’. The
concern over appropriate research methods and methodologies and
the contentious debates over legitimacy in social research have given
rise to publications such as Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies,
Epistemologies and Methodologies (Phillimore & Goodson, 2004) and The
Critical Turn in Tourism Studies (Ateljevic, Pritchard, & Morgan, 2007).
These issues and paradigmatic debates deserve further scrutiny with
respect to phenomenological research. Phenomenology is a philosoph-
ical and theoretical endeavour, and understanding the philosophical
and theoretical assumptions that inform phenomenological research
helps to situate the various approaches to phenomenology that have
evolved over the 20th century within a diverse range of research
paradigms. A study of philosophy of science (important to those
conducting empirical studies) and the philosophy of social science
shows how the positivist or scientific paradigms prevailed for the past
several hundred years, and how new ones are finally gaining currency:
such as post-positivism, critical theory and constructivism paradigms
(Guba & Lincoln, 2004). These research paradigms are useful in that
they help researchers to recognise where they are situated with respect
to the objects and things they study, specifically the philosophical
(ontological and epistemological) suppositions that influence
methodological approaches and assumptions of the research. Ontol-
ogy is the philosophical study of existence, reality and being, and forms
a branch in philosophy known as metaphysics (Guba & Lincoln, 1989).
Epistemology is the theory of knowledge and justified belief (Audi,
 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075 1061

2003). Methodology is the theory methods, and the methodological

considerations deal with the strategies for finding out what the re-
searcher believes can be known (Guba & Lincoln, 2004). Taken to-
gether, ontology, epistemology and methodology are complementary
as the first two (ontology and epistemology) inform the latter
(methodology).
In a phenomenological study, one’s methodology is not a simple
exercise and rather summons the process of coming to understand
the research approach, especially the philosophical assumptions and
theoretical influences that inform the method(s) of data gathering,
analysis and writing. Phenomenological research requires a dose of
scholastic vigilance to ensure that all components align with the aims
and philosophical underpinnings of the research study. As argued in
our review of phenomenological studies in tourism, lack of philosoph-
ical clarity and theoretical consideration has contributed towards the
confusion that prevails in the field (e.g., Czarycz, 2008, 2009). Table 1
compares several key paradigms in social research and underlines the
major differences between the ontological, epistemological and meth-
odological positions. In this table and paper overall, we reserve the
term methodology for a process which addresses the philosophical
and theoretical assumptions that then influence the choice of meth-
ods. It is important to note that approaches to phenomenology differ
significantly despite apparent similarities—a fact that has been largely
neglected in tourism studies. Accordingly, one can situate his/her phe-
nomenological study in different research paradigms ranging from
positivist (e.g., Husserl), post-positivist (e.g., Merleau-Ponty), to inter-
pretivist (e.g., Heidegger and Gadamer), constructivist (e.g., Richard
Rorty, Gadamer, Schutz), and deconstructivist (e.g., Jacques Derrida),
as illustrated in Table 1. Some key differences are identified below,
with the primary focus on events leading to the development of herme-
neutic phenomenology.

Husserlian Phenomenology Compared to Heideggerian Phenomenology

Spiegelberg and Schuhmann (1994) identify three core historical
phases and its most influential thinkers: (1) the preparatory phase with
Franz Brentano (1838–1917) and Carl Stumpf (1848–1936); (2) the
German phase with Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), Martin Heidegger
(1889–1976), and Max Scheler (1874–1928); and (3) the French phase
with Gabriel Marcel (1889–1974), Jean-Paul Satre (1905–80), Maurice
Merleau-Ponty (1908–61), Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005), Mikel Dufrenne
(1919–95), and Emmanuel Levinas (1906–95). We draw largely on
Husserl and Heidegger to illustrate important differences that tend
to be ignored in previous phenomenological research in tourism.
Husserl’s work lends itself well to those inclined towards the search
for essential structures of consciousness and the intrinsic structures
of experience. But Heidegger’s primary concerns were existentially
oriented towards understanding ‘‘being’’. His analysis in Being and
Time and later works such as What is Called Thinking (Heidegger,
1062 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075

Table 1. Guba’s Comparison of Prevailing Paradigms

PARADIGM ONTOLOGY EPISTEMOLOGY METHODOLOGY

Positivist Realist—reality exists Dualist/objectivist—it is Experimental/

‘‘out there’’ and is both possible and manipulative—
driven by immutable essential for the questions and /or
natural laws and inquirer to adopt a hypotheses are stated
mechanism. distant, non- in advance in
Knowledge of these interactive posture. propositional form
entities, laws, and Values and other and subjected to
mechanisms is biasing and empirical tests
conventionally confounding factors (falsification) under
summarised in the are thereby carefully controlled
form of time- and automatically conditions.
context-free excluded from
generalisations. influencing the
outcomes.
Post-positivist Critical realist—reality Modified objectivist— Modified experimental/
exists but can never objectivity remains a manipulative—
be fully apprehended. regulatory ideal, but it emphasise critical
It is driven by natural can only be multiplism. Redress
laws that can be only approximated, with imbalances by doing
incompletely special emphasis inquiry in more
understood. placed on external natural settings, using
guardians such as the more qualitative
critical tradition and methods, depending
the critical more on grounded
community. theory, and
reintroducing
discovery into the
inquiry process.
Critical Theory Critical realist—as in the Subjectivist—in the sense Dialogic, transformative—
case of post- that values mediate eliminate false
positivism. inquiry. consciousness and
energise and facilitate
transformation (via
praxis).
Constructivist Relativist—realities exist Subjectivist—inquirer Inter-subjective,
in the form of and inquired into are dialectic—individual
multiple mental fused into a single constructions are
constructions, socially (monistic) entity. elicited, compared
and experientially Findings are literally and contrasted
based, local and the creation of the dialectically, with the
specific, dependent process of interaction aim of generating one
for their form and between the two. (or a few)
content on the constructions on
persons who hold which there is
them. substantial consensus.

Table Source: Adopted from Guba (1990, p. 23–27).

1968) showed being in hermeneutic (interpretive) relationships with

objects. Gadamer’s treatise Truth and Method (1989) provides further
 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075 1063

epistemological contributions to Heidegger’s ontological analysis of

Da-sein (translated as ‘‘being there’’). Taken together, Heidegger’s her-
meneutic phenomenology and Gadamer’s subsequent work offer
strong complementarity and guidance for interpretive research aimed
toward ‘‘understanding’’ and ‘‘meaning’’ in the world of tourism.
Edmund Husserl (for major works see Husserl, 1931, 1970;
Bernet, Kern, & Marbach, 1995; Levinas, 1998) is known to be
the founder of twentieth-century phenomenological philosophy (Co-
hen, 1987). His work can be generally divided into three periods:
pre-transcendental or epistemological phenomenology, fully tran-
scendental phenomenology, and genetic phenomenology. Phenome-
nology for Husserl was a rigorous and scientific study of things as
they appear to be, in order to come to an essential understanding
of human consciousness and experience (Valle, King, & Halling,
1989). In his early work, Husserl demanded that objectivity of ‘‘even
the most logical of objectivities be traced back to the structures of
consciousness in and through which it first became possible’’
(Macann, 1993, p. 3). His contemporary exponents such as Amadeo
Giorgi (1975, 1997) continued to pursue phenomenology as a
method for the human sciences, searching for the essential struc-
tures of experience (Dowling, 2007; Polkinghorne, 1989). The tech-
niques of Husserlian phenomenology include phenomenological
reduction or bracketing, meaning suspending or excluding ‘‘all ques-
tions and claims concerning whatever might be casually responsible
for conscious experience’’ (Cerbone, 2006, p. 22). It is the essences
or inner, true nature of a thing that Husserl strove to identify
(Dowling, 2007).
Husserl’s undertaking to describe ‘‘pure’’ consciousness (com-
bined with the method of the phenomenological reduction) can in-
deed appear as a rigid and descriptive exercise: somewhat denoting
a positivist tendency. It was his aspiration to develop a method that
would advance philosophy to the status of a science. Influenced by
mathematics, he was driven to develop an ‘‘a priori science of the
universal structures of the perceptual world’’ (Hughes, 1990,
p. 140). Husserl’s structured approach to isolate the empirical world
and describe the essential structures of conscious experience thus
seems to fit well within the positivistic paradigm, shown in Table 1.
As noted earlier, much phenomenological research in tourism ap-
pears to have sought the essence of a phenomenon while disregard-
ing the particulars of context and interpretation. In contrast,
hermeneutic phenomenology provides researchers with the opportu-
nity to explore how tourists’ meaningful experiences come about.
For instance, what in a touristic situation may be for X an encounter
with ‘‘strangeness’’, can be meaningfully interpreted by Y due to her
socio-cultural-historical background. Here ‘‘strangeness’’ cannot be
the essence of that experience, but rather something that ‘‘travels’’
with the interpreting individual. The task of the hermeneutically in-
clined researcher is to engage with and explore the aspects that
shape one’s understanding (as opposed to ‘‘bracketing’’ it), a discus-
sion we continue next.
1064 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075

Heidegger’s Ontological Turn to Language and Being

Heidegger studied Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology and
worked closely with him, but came to the conclusion that phenomenol-
ogy had missed an important understanding of humans as existential
beings. He laid critical groundwork for hermeneutic phenomenology
in his major treatise Being and Time (1996), Da-sein (‘‘being’’ or, as
the hyphen indicates, ‘‘being there’’) as a situated, historical and tem-
poral being-in-the-world, in interpretive relationships with objects and
things (Heidegger, 1996). The question that motivated Heidegger’s
thought was: What is the meaning of being? (Gadamer, 1976, p. xlvi).
For Heidegger, human existence and experience is based on interpre-
tation and understanding; and language is the house of being. Experi-
ence is formed through interpretation of the world, and all
interpretation (including scientific understanding/interpretation) is
governed by the concrete situation of the interpreter.
Husserl and Heidegger thus came very differently to the exploration
of lived experience. Husserl focused on understanding consciousness,
in acts of attending, perceiving, recalling, and thinking about the world
(hence humans as the ‘‘knowers’’). Heidegger (1996) strove to expli-
cate Da-sein, humans as beings who are primarily concerned about
their existence and seek to understand it. They exist in relations of con-
cern to others; for example, we are in everyday relations to our friends
and family, and we also live in relations with equipment and tools (like
cars, bicycles that we use for transportation and recreation). His
life-long work lay in addressing the ontological-existential questions of
experiencing, understanding and thinking. The two joint aspects that
inform Heidegger’s existential phenomenology are hermeneutics as
related to beings engaged in language, understanding and interpreta-
tion, plus phenomenology as the study of experience (Laverty, 2003).
Heidegger was well-informed on earlier biblical hermeneutics, the
theory and practice of interpretation of scriptural passages/text. His
own work did not aim to develop a procedure of understanding, but
rather attempted to elucidate the conditions in which understanding
takes place (Koch, 1995). Interpretation should not be understood
as a tool for knowledge, he felt, but as the way human beings are (as
part of the hermeneutic circle). As such, Heidegger’s hermeneutic
phenomenology did not claim to develop accurate descriptions, as
did Husserl’s phenomenology, but focused instead on the situated, dia-
logic and interpretive qualities of being. Understanding occurs
through our culturally and historically mediated interpretations and
relationships with objects and things, and through the social meanings
contained in language. Table 2 summarises some key aspects of Husser-
lian and Heideggerian phenomenology and differences between these
two important traditions that shaped much of 20th century phenome-
nology studies and developments.
Especially pertinent to Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology
is the notion of historicity, which is a key aspect of the hermeneutic
circle (the most fundamental hermeneutic principle that Heidegger
laid out in Being and Time). As explained by Pattison (2000, p. 109),
 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075 1065

Table 2. Differences between Husserlian and Heideggerian phenomenology

Husserlian Phenomenology Heideggerian Phenomenology

Transcendental phenomenology Philosophical hermeneutics

Epistemological (focus on knowledge
through human consciousness)
Epistemological questions of knowing
How do we know what we know?
Cartesian duality: mind body split
A mechanistic view of the person
Mind-body person live in a world of objects
Ahistorical
Unit of analysis is meaning-giving subject
What is shared is the essence of the
conscious mind
Starts with reflection of mental states
Meaning is unsullied by the interpreter’s
own normative goals or view of the world
Participants’ meanings can be reconstituted
in interpretive work by insisting data
speaks for themselves
Claim that adequate techniques and
procedures guarantee validity of
interpretation
Bracketing defends the validity or objectivity
of the interpretation against self-interest
Hermeneutic phenomenology
Existential-ontological (focus on existential
relations and experience)
Questions of experiencing, understanding
and meaning
What does it mean to be a person (e.g., a
teacher, a backpacker, a shopkeeper, a
mother)?
Da-sein (being there, being-in-the-world)
Person as self-interpreting being
As person exists as a ‘being’ in and of the
world, ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’
categories are dualistic and inappropriate.
Historicality
Unit of analysis is relationship between
situation and the person, that is,
situatedness of the individual in the world
What is shared in culture, history, practice,
language
We are already in the world in our pre-
reflective states
Interpreters participate in making data
Within the fore-structure of understanding
interpretation can only make explicit what
is already understood
Establish own criteria for trustworthiness of
research
The hermeneutic circle (background, co-
constitution, pre-understanding)

Table Source: Adapted from Koch (1995, p. 832); Laverty (2003, p. 26).

interpretation involves the ‘‘unfolding of our tacit, lived self-under-

stand (Heidegger’s term, Auslegung, literally means ‘laying out’)’’.
Heidegger (1996) argued that interpretation is grounded in some-
thing we have in advance, a fore-having, a fore-sight as he puts it. In
this sense, interpretation is one’s background presenting ways of
interpreting and understanding the world; pre-understandings shape
experience. For instance when an eco-conscious hotel guest is asked
to turn the lights off to save electricity (she reads the green hotel
guidelines posted in her hotel room), she does not have to first
figure out the concept of electricity nor determine what light is.
She has a pre-understanding of these, and of the sustainability con-
cerns being expressed—how she acts depends on her ethical and
cultural context, background and traditions. Heidegger saw all
understanding as interlinked with certain fore-structures of which
1066 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075

such historicity was an important part. Therefore rather than focus-

ing on the essence of experience (the aim of Husserl), Heidegger
was concerned with illuminating the phenomenon of what he called
the world—the purposes, activities, and significance of the objects
that surround us (Cerbone, 2006).
An example may be helpful to further illustrate this important prin-
ciple. Take, for instance, the phenomenological question of what it
means to be a backpacker. To engage with this question in a research
study requires consideration of the fore-structures (Heidegger, 1996) of
relevant concepts such as tourism and backpacking, and various pre-
understandings surrounding this activity. Tourism scholars define phe-
nomena, create concepts and select research samples based on their
own pre-understandings and historicity. Additionally, the researcher’s
interpretation and understanding is shaped by whether the researcher
has experienced backpacking directly him/herself and is able to relate
to the data shared by the participants. For instance, the participant-
backpacker may use expressions such as ‘‘Eurotrash’’ and ‘‘hippie’’;
or English may be his/her second language while it is the first language
of the researcher. The researcher must ponder whether they have the
same understanding of the above terms and whether one’s ability or
inability to communicate in the same language matters. These and
many more questions play a vital role in conducting a study guided
by hermeneutical phenomenology.
Table 3 offers some guidance in regard to ontology, epistemology
and methodology. We have purposefully drawn on Guba and Lincoln
(1989) and Denzin and Lincoln’s (2000, 2003), popular portrayal of
paradigms in order not to over-complicate matters. Subsequently,
Table 3 summarises some of the key assumptions guiding hermeneutic
phenomenology as an interpretive approach to studying experience.
We also recommend exploring other literature on the issues of knowl-
edge construction (e.g., Crotty, 1998; Slife & Williams, 1995). The work
of Alfred Schutz (1967), for example, can be of particular interest to
those wanting to explore phenomenological sociology and social/cul-
tural distribution of knowledge.

Methodological Considerations for Tourism Studies

It should be clear by now that phenomenological research is under-
pinned by ontological and epistemological assumptions that vary
depending on the theorist being followed (see Table 1). Husserl’s phe-
nomenology corresponds to a positivistic approach, Merleau-Ponty to
post-positivist, Heidegger and Gadamer to interpretivist orientations.
The researcher’s responsibility is to ascertain with which paradigm
(and ontological and epistemological assumptions) he/she associates,
and draw on the corresponding school of thought. We noted earlier
the tendency in tourism research toward a positivistic search for an
‘‘essence’’ that characterises, for instance, the notion of difference
(self-other) and strangeness in a tourism setting, often also striving
for research results that provide a generalisable experience. It is not
surprising, perhaps, that Husserl’s positivistic approach is more
 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075 1067

Table 3. Hermeneutic phenomenology: preliminary guidelines for research in tourism studies

REASON FOR RESEARCH To study lived experience and understand how experiences are
interpreted and understood (the meanings of these
experiences to the participants involved).
ONTOLOGY (Being-in-the-World) Realist: The World and Nature can be
accessed by means of our being-in-the-world: we make sense of
our being and lifeworld (the world we live in) through
reflective representation and analysis. All understanding of
our being-in-the-world is perspectival and shaped by pre-
understanding, historicity, culture, practice, background,
language etc.). There is ‘‘realness’’ to the world and to our
experiences; Da-sein’s involvement plays a key role in
constructing ‘‘truth’’.
EPISTEMOLOGY Hermeneutic: The main focus is on interpretation, context, and
language; what counts as ‘‘truth’’ is based on interpretation,
co-construction and reflexive participation. Both the
researcher and the participant are self-interpreting beings
who live in the ‘‘real’’ world and hence both play an
important role in the process of arriving at understanding
through dialogue and interpretation. Language plays a key
role.
METHODOLOGY Interpretive and dialogic: The researcher seeks to interpret and
understand the lived experience; searches for meaning,
analyses, critiques, and negotiates between theory and data,
and is guided by hermeneutic phenomenology. The focus is
on relationship between self and other, rather than
‘‘subjective’’ or ‘‘objective’’ stance.
Method: Interviews and participant observation, writing rich
description aimed at understanding and meaning. Co-
construction, reflexivity, and historicity are important guiding
principles to this interpretive task (please note that there are
no prescribed methods and these are only suggestions).

comforting to researchers seeing step-by-step methodical process. Con-

temporary phenomenologists such as van Kaam (1966), Giorgi (1975,
1983, 1997) and Colaizzi (1978) have become the source of inspiration
for guidance to research employing descriptive (positivist) phenome-
nologies with established methods/procedures (Ehrich, 2005). But
for those researchers who admit to a more interpretive paradigm in
their own research orientation, the under-studied hermeneutic phe-
nomenology offers rich possibilities for addressing the being-in-the-world
of tourism (Jamal & Hill, 2002), as a tourist, a resident, a governmental
official, an enterprise owner, a destination manager or other being in
relationship with the objects and things in the local-global tourism
system.
Heidegger did not craft a methodical guide to studying experience,
and in fact emphasised the processual (process-oriented) role of inter-
pretation in hermeneutic phenomenology. One has to carefully read
and interpret his works, drawing from them methodological guidance
(see below). Some attempts have been made to develop systematic
methods that attract those looking for practical guidance to
1068 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075

conducting research using hermeneutic phenomenology. For instance,

van Manen’s (1990) Researching Lived Experience is commonly referred
to with respect to method guidance in conducting hermeneutic phe-
nomenology. For a detailed description of various phenomenological
approaches and methods, readers are referred to Hughes (1990), Mou-
stakas (1994), Polkinghorne (1983), Polkinghorne (1989), van Kaam
(1966), and van Manen’s (1990, 2002).

Methodological Insights from Heidegger

Hermeneutic phenomenology is a challenging research endeavour
as noted above, for there are no strict rules of interpretation. But there
are theoretical insights in Heidegger’s writings that one can draw upon
for guidance in developing interpretively rich descriptions, under-
standings and meanings. For Heidegger, hermeneutics no longer re-
fers to the science of interpretation, but rather to the process of
interpretation as an essential characteristic of Da-sein. Gadamer
(1989) subsequent development of philosophical hermeneutics (build-
ing on the work commenced by his teacher, Heidegger) shows that
bracketing of phenomena to get at the structures of consciousness
(as Husserl attempted) is not possible because understanding and
interpretation are indissolubly bound up with each other. This is per-
haps the most important aspect of hermeneutic phenomenology in
contrast to the work of Husserl, for hermeneutic approaches consider
not only what is being interpreted but also the process of interpreta-
tion and the role of the interpreter. Words such as subjective and objec-
tive (as well as attempts to isolate subject and object) have to be
problematised in interpretive social research. Interpretation creates
an intricate relationship between the two: showing the inseparability
of ‘‘being’’ with the ‘‘world’’, with the ‘‘historicity’’ of being, and with
the notion of ‘‘truth’’ in this interpretive paradigm.
Epistemologically, hermeneutic phenomenology is open to many
possible interpretations and understandings, which are historically
grounded and context dependent. Truth is not constructed regardless
of the external world but rather in intricate relationship with it. The
world has something to say back to us (the person), to put it somewhat
colloquially. For example, an encounter with a grizzly while hiking in
the back country of the Canadian Rockies is not a one-sided construc-
tion of ‘‘essential’’ backpacker experience, as the backpacker would
find out very quickly were the grizzly to attack. The backpacker’s expe-
rience is intricately related to her interaction with the back country
world and encounter with the grizzly; it is an interpretive experience,
as she attempts to makes sense of the encounter for herself, a process
that continues in dialogic interaction between the backpacker and the
interviewer. ‘‘Truth’’ in hermeneutic phenomenology is neither an
objective endeavour nor something awaiting ‘‘verification’’ or ‘‘confir-
mation’’ through a set of methodical tools. Truth is an interpretive
construct, and involves assessing the trustworthiness or credibility of
the researcher’s interpretation of the participant’s experience (as
 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075 1069

described by the participant). There is furthermore the interpretive

play between theory and ‘‘data’’ that the researcher is involved in,
for instance, by bringing in other theoretical insights to further inter-
pret the experience; it is an iterative process of going back and forth to
the literature to inform concepts that arise from interpretive analysis.
Interpretive studies of experience and meaning thus require
thoughtful discussion of reflexivity (Jamal & Hollinshead, 2001).
Laverty (2003) explains that the process of analysing data is different
from transcendental phenomenology (Husserl), where the aim is to
isolate the perception of phenomena from the researcher and partici-
pant. In hermeneutic phenomenology, a participant’s experience of X
is seen to be a process of co-construction by the researcher and partic-
ipant(s). The researcher and the participant co-construct the data and
work together to produce meaning; together they elucidate the condi-
tions in which understanding takes place. The participant engages in
interpreting and assigning meaning to the experience; in recounting
this to the researcher, another level of interpretation occurs: co-con-
struction of the experience as recounted by the participant to the re-
searcher (also influenced by particular cultural and social forces).
To further highlight the difference in phenomenological ap-
proaches, consider two strategies to study a backpacker’s experience.
Say one researcher follows Husserl to describe the ‘‘essential’’ experi-
ence of being a backpacker, and the other employs hermeneutic phe-
nomenology. Both researchers will engage in interpretation, but the
former would focus on identifying the essential structures of conscious-
ness in the backpacking experience, and employ the scientific method
of striving for objectivity and emotional distance. The latter, following
Heidegger’s approach, would look to understand what it means to be a
backpacker and how that experience emerges. The latter is a dialogic
process, and the researcher’s reflexivity is strongly present in interpret-
ing the backpacker’s experience as a dialogue between the researcher
and the backpacker. Interpretive understanding therefore plays a key
role in hermeneutic approaches to research.
To ensure that the differences in these two phenomenological ap-
proaches are clear, we will solicit the help of a phenomenological study
by Szarycz (2008), which seeks to gain an insight into the passenger
freighter travel experience. While Szarycz cites van Manen (1990)
and Moustakas (1994), the research itself appears to try to isolate
and identify the essence of a person’s experience, questioning what that
might be, puzzling over commonalities (or rather lack thereof) be-
tween the experiences of various freighter travellers. It could be argued
that clearly identifying the phenomenological approach (e.g., Hus-
serl’s versus Heidegger’s), and the researcher’s own philosophical
assumptions would help reviewers and readers in evaluating the credi-
bility (or trustworthiness) of the phenomenological study. Szarycz
(2008, p. 261), for example, offers the following types of statements:
‘‘participants were selected on the basis of having had experience with
the phenomenon of interest’’...‘‘definitions for each theme were estab-
lished as the data were worked and modified accordingly’’. Note the
objective, scientific discourse adopted, including neutral language
1070 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075

and lack of the researcher’s own, situatedness in the study (e.g., using
‘‘I’’ instead of the third person). The researcher as an active shaper of
knowledge is absent.
By contrast, in hermeneutic phenomenology, the researcher is an
intrinsic part of the interpretation that emerges and he/she cannot
be ‘‘bracketed’’ out of the process. The matter of pre-understandings,
prejudices or pre-judgements, which both Heidegger and Gadamer
show are intricately part of one’s being, and cannot be isolated scien-
tifically. Heidegger’s Da-sein is a historical being, enmeshed in tempo-
ral and cultural relationships, and a pre-reflective stance towards the
world. One might guess, therefore, that Szarycz is adopting a positivist
lens, and the study most likely fits Husserlian phenomenology, but
should the onus not be on the researcher to declare his/her philo-
sophical and theoretical assumptions, and thus justify the choice of
study methods? Moreover, what personal ‘‘biases’’ does the researcher
bring to the study, and how can these be brought into the study of
experience? There are different pre-judgements (prejudices) and
meaning which both the researcher and the participant (tourist/
host/tour guide) bring to their interpretation of experience. The task
of the hermeneutic phenomenology researcher is to put together the
pieces in someone’s understanding of an experience, to interpret
and communicate the diverse relationships, meanings and prejudices.
Post-positivistic researchers try to declare their biases and ‘‘bracket’’
them, while interpretive researchers attempt to situate themselves
and their biases in the study such that the reader and reviewer can
interpret for themselves what these mean in the given context.

CONCLUSION
This paper delineates historical and paradigmatic evolutions in the
study of phenomenology, specifically, the valuable contributions made
in the early half of the 20th century by Edmund Husserl and Martin
Heidegger. Phenomenology as a philosophical area of study has flour-
ished to produce diverse theoretical perspectives, and has been used
more recently to inform the study of lived experience. We have
attempted to clarify above that phenomenological investigations are
grounded in diverse theoretical and philosophical assumptions (e.g.,
different ontological and epistemological assumptions). Phenomenol-
ogy is not a method in itself, but can guide the choices of methods em-
ployed (e.g., it can provide methodological direction). We have argued
that previous phenomenological research in tourism has generally
failed to acknowledge these differences, or provide adequate informa-
tion to enable effective evaluation of the credibility of the research.
From the examples we provided of such previous research, we can
‘‘guess’’ (as information on the theoretical influence is often inade-
quate) that Husserl’s positivistic approach seems to be favoured over
a more interpretive study of experience, such as Heidegger’s existential
phenomenology. We therefore summarise some key characteristics and
guidelines to the application of Husserl’s descriptive phenomenology,
 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075 1071

and go on to highlight important aspects of Heidegger’s existential

and hermeneutic approaches for the study of experience which we
hope may help facilitate future interpretive research into experience
in the tourism domain.
This paper situates hermeneutic phenomenology within an interpre-
tive paradigm that is grounded in a realist ontology plus an epistemol-
ogy that involves hermeneutic interpretation (see Table 3). The key
role of language in understanding has been stressed, and the impor-
tance of the researcher’s reflexivity, co-construction of interpretation,
and historicity (the researcher’s historical context as well as the partic-
ipant’s) has been underscored. Combining Heidegger’s development
of this concept with Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics is an
important future task. It offers strong potential for developing robust
theoretical and methodological frameworks for applying hermeneutic
phenomenology to tourism studies of experience. Heidegger’s seminal
treatise Being and Time (1996) introduces key principles of hermeneu-
tic phenomenology, as noted in this paper; however, his later work on
dwelling (Heidegger, 1971) also offers perspectives useful for the study
of dwelling and belonging in spaces of tourism.
There are, of course, other influential contemporary thinkers who
added significant nuances to the study of experience and whom we
could not possibly discuss in depth in this paper: Hans-Georg Gadamer
(philosophical hermeneutics), Ricouer (critical hermeneutics), and
Jacques Derrida (deconstruction), Aflred Schutz (intersubjective, so-
cial phenomenology). We focused largely on the phenomenology of
Husserl and Heidegger whose differing works laid the foundations
on which subsequent interpretive, critical and deconstructive variants
were built. What we hoped to achieve is to show that hermeneutic phe-
nomenology is a valuable research means and that it has its place in
tourism. The potential of this approach is vast and comprises a large
spectrum of possible research subjects from tourists, hosts, workers,
and students, to members of local communities. Information that
emerges as the result of adopting hermeneutic phenomenology can
be valuable to different stakeholders (e.g., marketers, service providers,
business owners, and planners) but also to academia. For example, her-
meneutic phenomenology can support the emerging works on cosmo-
politanism and feminist analysis in forming an understanding of how
cosmopolitan individuals negotiate their worlds of place, space and
meaning (Swain, 2009). It can be a critical instrument into further
exploring how experiences may be gendered, classed, sexed, raced,
aged and how these pre-givens dictate how we experience tourism.
Hermeneutic modes of investigation also facilitate meaningful inter-
pretation of complex issues such as the ontological properties of tour-
ism and its relationship to peace (Pernecky, 2010).
Lastly, those inclined towards (post)positivism and scientific study of
tourism should note that positivistic approaches to studying experience
(e.g., Husserl, Giorgi, van Kamm) may have to face the critique of dis-
embodiment and Cartesian dualism (separating mind/consciousness
from body). By contrast, Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology
provides for situated and embodied accounts of tourism, and offers
1072 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075

the opportunity to delve into the understanding of a tourist’s experi-

ence. Hermeneutic phenomenology raises questions pertinent to
knowledge production and existential being: being-in-the-world as a tour-
ist, a researcher, a non-governmental organisation, a small businessper-
son, a government agency or any other stakeholder involved in
tourism. It also challenges dominant epistemologies and breaks new
theoretical grounds in the study of experience in tourism. The overall
conceptual effort of this paper commences a preliminary conversation
on what are yet to become theoretically and methodologically robust
(hermeneutic) phenomenological studies in tourism.

REFERENCES
Ablett, P. G., & Dyer, P. K. (2009). Heritage and hermeneutics: Towards a boarder
interpretation of interpretation. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(3), 209–233.
Andriotis, K. (2009). Sacred site experience. A Phenomenological Study. Annals of
Tourism Research, 36(1), 64–84.
Annells, M. (1996). Hermeneutic phenomenology: Philosophical perspectives and
current use in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 23(4), 705–713.
Ateljevic, I., Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2007). Editors’ introduction: Promoting
an academy of hope in tourism enquiry. In I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard, & N.
Morgan (Eds.), The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies (pp. 1–8). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Audi, R. (2003). Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge (2nd
ed.). London: Routledge.
Bernet, R., Kern, I., & Marbach, E. (1995). Introduction to Husserlian phenomenology.
Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Brentano, F. (1973). Psychology from an empirical standpoint (A.C. Rancurello, D.B.
Terrell, & L. McAlister, Trans.). In Kraus, O., McAlister, L. L. (Eds.), London:
Routledge.
Cerbone, D. R. (2006). Understanding phenomenology. Stocksfield: Acumen Publish-
ing Limited.
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experience. Sociology, 13(2),
179–201.
Cohen, E., Yeshayahu, N., & Almagor, U. (1992). Stranger-local interaction in
photography. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 213–233.
Cohen, M. (1987). A historical overview of the phenomenology movement. Journal
of Nursing Scholarship, 19(1), 31–34.
Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R.
S. Valle & M. King (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology
(pp. 48–71). New York: Oxford University Press.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. London: Sage.
Curtin, S. (2006). Swimming with dolphins: A phenomenological exploration of
tourist recollections. International Journal of Tourism Research, 8(4), 301–315.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.).
London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(2nd ed., pp. 1–46). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Dowling, M. (2007). From Husserl to van Manen. A review of different
phenomenological approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(1),
131–142.
Ehrich, L. (2005). Revisiting phenomenology: Its potential for management research. Said
Business School, Oxford University: Paper presented at the british academy of
management conference.
 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075 1073

Franklin, A. (2004). Tourism as an ordering: Towards a new ontology of tourism.

Tourist Studies, 4(3), 277–301.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics (D. E. Linge, Trans.). In D. E.
Linge (Ed.). Berkley: University of California Press.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall,
Trans.) (2nd ed.). New York: Crossroads.
Gibson, S. K., & Hanes, L. A. (2003). The contribution of phenomenology to HRD
research. Human Resource Development review, 2(2), 181–205.
Giorgi, A. (1975). An application of phenomenological method in psychology. In
A. Giorgi, C. T. Fischer, & E. L. Murray (Eds.), Duquesnestudies in phenomeno-
logical psychology, vol. 2 (pp. 82–103). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Giorgi, A. (1983). Concerning the possibility of phenomenological psychological
research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 14(2), 129–169.
Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological
method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological
Psychology, 28(2), 235–260.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The
paradigm dialog (pp. 17–27). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2004). Competing paradigms in qualitative research:
Theories and issues. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to
qualitative research (pp. 17–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayllar, B., & Griffin, T. (2005). The precinct experience. A phenomenological
approach. Tourism Management, 26(4), 517–528.
Heidegger, M. (1968). What is called thinking? (F. D. Wieck & J. G. Gray, Trans.).
New York: Harper and Row.
Heidegger, M. (1971). Building, dwelling, thinking (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). New
York: Springer.
Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time. A translation of Sein und Zeit (J. Stambaugh,
Trans.). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hughes, J. (1990). The philosophy of social research (2nd ed.). New York: Longman
Publishing.
Husserl, E. (1931). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. In W.R.B.
Gibson, Trans.). London: Springer.
Husserl, E. (1970). The idea of phenomenology. The Hague: Nojhoff.
Ingram, G. (2002). Motivations of farm tourism hosts and guests in the South West
Tapestry Region, Western Australia. A phenomenological study. Indo-Pacific
Journal of Phenomenology, 2(1), 12.
Jamal, T., & Everett, J. (2004). Resisting rationalization in the natural and
academic lifeworld: Critical tourism research or hermeneutic charity? Current
Issues in Tourism, 7(1), 1–19.
Jamal, T., & Hill, S. (2002). The home and the world post touristic spaces of in
authenticity. In G. Dann (Ed.), The tourist as a metaphor of the social world
(pp. 77–107). Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CABI International.
Jamal, T., & Hollinshead, K. (2001). Tourism and the forbidden zone: The
underserved power of qualitative inquiry. Tourism Management, 22(1), 63–82.
Jamal, T., & Stronza, A. (2008). ‘‘Dwelling’’ with ecotourism in the Peruvian
Amazon: Cultural relationships in local-global spaces. Tourist Studies, 8(3),
313–336.
Jennings, G. (2001). Tourism research. Milton: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Koch, T. (1995). Interpretive approaches in nursing research: The influence of
Husserl and Heidegger. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21(5), 827–836.
Koch, T. (1996). Implementation of a hermeneutic inquiry in nursing: Philosophy,
rigour and representation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24(1), 174–184.
Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A
comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 1–29.
Levinas, E. (1998). Discovering existence with Husserl (R.Cohen & M. Smith, Trans.).
Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
1074 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075

Li, Y. (2000). Geographical consciousness and tourism experience. Annals of

Tourism Research, 27(4), 863–883.
Macann, C. (1993). Four phenomenological philosophers. London: Routledge.
Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure and
tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 314–331.
Masberg, B. A., & Silverman, L. H. (1996). Visitor experiences at heritage sites: A
phenomenological approach. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 20–25.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1942). The structure of behavior (A. L. Fisher, Trans.). London:
Methuen.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). The phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.).
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The visible and the invisible (A. Lingis, Trans.). Evanston:
Northwestern University Press.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. California, USA: Sage
Publications.
Nell, B. F. (1973). The phenomenological approach to pedagogy. Journal of
Phenomenological Psychology, 3(2), 201–215.
Obenour, W. L. (2004). Understanding the meaning of the ‘journey’’ to budget
travellers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(1), 1–15.
Pattison, G. (2000). The later heidegger. New York: Routledge.
Pernecky, T. (2006). Co-creating with the universe: A phenomenological study of
New Age tourists. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 54(2),
127–143.
Pernecky, T. (2010). The being of tourism. The Journal of Tourism and Peace
Research(1), 1–22.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every
business a stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Phillimore, J., & Goodson, L. (2004). Progress in qualitative research in tourism:
epistemology, ontology and methodology. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson
(Eds.), Qualitative Research in Tourism (pp. 3–29). London: Routledge.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological Research Methods. In R. S. Valle &
S. Halling (Eds.), Existential-Phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology
(pp. 41–60). New York: Plenum Press.
Pons, P. O. (2003). Being-on-holiday: tourist dwelling, bodies and place. Tourist
Studies, 3(1), 47–66.
Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2007). De-centring tourism’s intellectual universe, or
traversing the dialogue between change and tradition. In I. Ateljevic, A.
Pritchard, & N. Morgan (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism studies: Innovative
research methodologies (pp. 11–28). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. (2006a). Reconceptualising interpretation: The role of
tour guides in authentic tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(6), 481–498.
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. (2006b). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals
of Tourism Research, 33(1), 65–86.
Ritchie, B. W., Burns, P. M., & Palmer, C. (2005). Tourism research methods:
Integrating theory with practice. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. (1995). What’s behind the research? Discovering hidden
assumptions in the behavioral sciences. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Spiegelberg, H., & Schuhmann, K. (1994). The phenomenological movement: A
historical introduction (third revised and enlarged edition). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Stewart, D., & Mickunas, A. (1974). Exploring Phenomenology. Chicago: American
Library Association.
Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & F. Lehnert,
Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Suvantola, J. (2002). Tourist’s experience of place. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing
Limited.
Swain, M. B. (2009). The cosmopolitan hope of tourism: Critical action and
worldmaking vistas. Tourism Geographies, 11(4), 505–525.
 T. Pernecky, T. Jamal / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 1055–1075 1075

Szarycz, G. S. (2008). Cruising, freighter-style: A phenomenological exploration of

tourist recollections of a passenger freighter travel experience. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 10(3), 259–269.
Szarycz, G. S. (2009). Some issues in tourism research phenomenology: A
commentary. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(1), 47–58.
Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage (3rd ed.). Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press.
Uriely, N., & Belhassen, Y. (2005). Drugs and tourists’ experiences. Journal of Travel
Research, 43(3), 238–246.
Uriely, N., Yonay, Y., & Simchai, D. (2002). Backpacking experiences: A type and
form analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 520–538.
Valle, R. S., King, M., & Halling, S. (1989). An introduction to existential-
phenomenological thought in psychology. In R. S. Valle & S. Halling (Eds.),
Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology: exploring the breadth of human
experience. With a special section on transpersonal psychology (pp. 3–16). New York:
Plenum Press.
van Kaam, A. (1966). Existential foundations of psychology. Pittsburgh: Duquesne
University Press.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. Human science for an action
sensitive pedagogy. Ontario: The Althouse Press.
van Manen, M. (2003). Phenomenology online. Retrieved June 24, 2003, from
<http://www.phenomenologyonline.com>.
van Manen, M. (2002). Writing phenomenology. In M. van Manen (Ed.), Writing in
the dark: Phenomenological studies in interpretive inquiry (pp. 1–8). Ontario: The
Althouse Press.
Veal, A. J. (1992). Research methods for leisure and tourism. Essex: Longman Group UK
Limited.
Walle, A. H. (1997). Quantitative versus qualitative tourism research. Annals of
Tourism Research, 24(3), 524–536.
Wolff, R. F. (1999). A phenomenological study of in-church and televised worship.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38(2), 219–236.

Submitted 6 August. Resubmitted 13 January 2010. Resubmitted 25 March 2010. Final

version 4 April 2010. Accepted 7 April 2010. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor:
Erik Cohen

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com